An ongoing review of politics and culture

Last week, I went to see Ta-Nehisi Coates interview David Remnick on his recently released biography of Barack Obama. The conversation, which took place in the New York Public Library, was well worth the ticket price. Mr. Coates is an intelligent interlocutor who exudes intellectual curiosity, while Mr. Remnick is just an impossibly polished public speaker — the man seems to summon witty retorts at will, and his answers are bereft of verbal crutches. A transcript is now available here, and I encourage everyone to take a look (the writers among you might ask yourself how it is possible to write a reported biography in 12 months while editing The New Yorker, and I can’t say it’s something I can comprehend).

There’s one excerpt I’d like to discuss.

Ta-Nehisi Coates: I wanted to start with a particular question for you in terms of identity. The book is obviously very much about Barack Obama’s identity. I wonder how much your own identity influenced how you approached the story, if at all.

David Remnick: I got mine at the kitchen table. I got mine in the community that I grew up in. It came easy to me, to some degree. Look at how much Barack Obama had to figure out. I mean, he’s born who he is, he can look in the mirror; but it must have been extraordinarily confusing to have this father who was a ghost, a myth, a collection of stories that he barely knew, and by the way, were highly unreliable.

The topic of identity is basically the theme of the whole interview — there are indeed a lot of interesting questions about how this man with an unusual background formed his identity, and how that impacted his political rise. What I can’t figure, though, are the many folks on the right who react to Barack Obama in the way that Mark Steyn did in responding to the same excerpt: “Nearly as confusing as electing a post-partisan centrist-redeemer president who turns out to be a ghost, a myth, a collection of stories that we barely knew,” Mr. Steyn writes, “and by the way, were highly unreliable.”

Mr. Steyn’s posts more and more resembles talk radio monologues, the rigor typical of written argument sacrificed for the fraught tones and nonsensical-upon-reflection insinuations of the EIB Network, so it’s almost impossible to tackle this head on, but at least part of what’s asserted is that President Obama is something other than advertised in a way more extreme than the average politician. This is a common trope on talk radio and cable news generally. The idea is that we’ve elected a radical, though much of America still doesn’t realize it, and the ones who do perceive his “true” nature keep darkly repeating, “Who is this man?”

This confuses me because whether one thinks that President Obama’s domestic agenda is a step in the right direction, as his supporters do, or that he is recklessly spending too much money while intensifying the already unhealthy relationship between big government and corporate interests, as I do, it is indisputable that we’re getting basically what he said he’d do during the campaign.

To be sure, there are broken promises, like the one about not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, but the most consequential initiatives of his presidency — health care, pursuing cap and trade, drawing down Iraq, ramping up Afghanistan, wanting to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts — aren’t particularly surprising for anyone paying a little bit of attention.

It’s as if Mr. Steyn somehow believes that the unanswered questions about President Obama’s personal identity are particularly consequential with regard to his agenda in the Oval Office. Victor Davis Hanson writes a lot of posts in this vein too, always an amalgam of assertions grounded only in impressions he has formed about President Obama, as opposed to his actions. Thus Mr. Davis Hanson simultaneously argues that President Obama is a foreign policy radical who sympathizes with the enemies of America, and that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is vindicated by the striking degree that President Obama has pursued continuity with it. Put simply, there is this subset of Obama critics on the right who perceive that Barack Hussein Obama’s personal identity is complex — and from this observation they for some reason think that his political identity is equally hard to comprehend, when in fact he is in most ways an utterly conventional, establishment politician whose behavior is very easy to predict.

Right-wingers like Mr. Steyn aren’t alone in analyzing President Obama as a man whose identity is unfamiliar, curious, and worthy of exploration. In his own way, that is Mr. Remnick’s project too. But Mr. Remnick seems to understand something important — take a look at this:

DR: When he ran for Congress in 2000 he ran against the former Black Panther Bobby Rush, and somebody extremely popular on the south side; an act of impiety. He lost two to one, and it was an ugly, ugly race, in which Rush and another opponent really were putting it out on the street that this guy is inauthentic – not black enough, was the phrase; that he’s an outsider; he’s not really one of us, he doesn’t have our experience, etc, etc, etc. Which is a complete denial of the black experience in America, which is immensely diverse, whether it is people who are from the Caribbean or from Africa or from… This subject dogs him all the way; it doesn’t begin with the presidential race.

TC: Since you mention Bobby Rush: there is a great scene in your book where Rush harps on how Obama walks, his bob, as we tend to call it, and he jokes that Obama did not walk like that before he came to Chicago, and that he acquired this kind of way of walking.

DR Yes. Bobby Rush is not a young man any more; his health is not the best. He is very tall and very skinny, and he is the cock of the walk. Why? Because he is the one guy who beat Obama; and he beat him soundly. So, here he is in his congressional office: it’s very nice that Barack has won finally, and he’s mocking him, and then he gets up and he just sashays across the office. And he said, you know, back then he didn’t walk like that when he ran against me. You know, he’s accusing him, even to this day, of inauthenticity; as if we all don’t learn, as if we are born with walks and all kinds of things.

I think that is an important insight — that every person, and especially every politician, does a lot to construct his or her own identity. President Obama’s personal journey may be more unconventional that that of past presidents, and the issues that it touches upon — race, ethnicity, black advancement in America — make it an appealing area of inquiry for folks like Mr. Remnick who find these issues particularly important. But President Bush, President Clinton, and every other president before them had complex personal identities, and the people who think that President Obama’s personal history somehow make him less predictable as a politician are just underestimating the extent that every president — indeed, every person — has a complex, worldview shaping personal history if you really dig down.

Leave a Reply

“we’re getting basically what he said he’d do during the campaign.”

I agree. I wonder how many pundits like Steyn have even read Obama’s books. The conservative who I think writes the best on Obama is Steve Sailer. He has read both of Obama’s books.

While I agree with Mercer that Sailer is excellent on Obama (here is his excellent review of Remnick’s book: http://vdare.com/sailer/100411_remnick.htm) I think you are missing Steyn’s point. Yes, Obama said he would reform health care and provide health care to those who don’t have it. But did he really explain to voters he would give us Obamacare? I don’t think so and that’s what has the Tea Party crowd, along with a lot of independents/moderates concerned about the future of this country. They know Obamacare is not fundamental reform.

Yes, I think he basically described Obamacare. Obviously some things changed as the legislative process wore on, but if you go back and watch the debates between Obama and Clinton, and the endless questions about health care, the reform he described is what we got in most significant ways, as far as I can tell.

I’m not as well informed on this as Klein or Suderman, so correct me if I am wrong, but what is it about Obamacare that is so different from what he described on the campaign trail?

Obama did not campaign for what became Obamacare. He campaigned for the basic framework of the bill he signed into law. “Obamacare,” such as it exists, is an amalgam of the death panels, internment camps, “government takeover” and whatever else got cooked up to drive voter anger.

There is a reason polls show that people like each of the elements of the bill but hate it as a whole. “Obamacare” isn’t the healthcare bill and vice versa.

The problem is that Obama was sold to the voters by David Axelrod and the media as the postracial candidate who transcends race, who transcends race. Now, David Remnick is saying exactly what I’ve been vilified for pointing out since 2007: (to quote Remnick on p. 190 of The Bridge):

“As much as anyone can, Obama has chosen his racial identity, pursued it.”

“The problem is that Obama was sold to the voters by David Axelrod and the media as the postracial candidate who transcends race, who transcends race.”

How many Americans knew who David Axelrod was during the campaign? How many even know who he is now? Do you have an actual quote to back up your assertion about how Obama was sold, or is it basically just your impression and the conventional wisdom kinda bundled together?

Just Google “Obama transcend race” and you’ll get 4 million hits. Google “Obama postracial” and you’ll get 1 million hits.

The funniest thing is that Jimmy Smits’ Presidential candidate in the last two seasons of West Wing was based on Axelrod’s version of Obama. From the NYT:

Following the Script: Obama, McCain and ‘The West Wing’
By BRIANSTELTER
Published: October 29, 2008

When Eli Attie, a writer for “The West Wing,” prepared to plot some episodes about a young Democratic congressman’s unlikely presidential bid, he picked up the phone and called David Axelrod.

Mr. Attie, a former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, and Mr. Axelrod, a political consultant, had crossed campaign trails before. “I just called him and said, ‘Tell me about Barack Obama,’ ” Mr. Attie said.

Days after Mr. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered an address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the two men held several long conversations about his refusal to be defined by his race and his aspirations to bridge the partisan divide. Mr. Axelrod was then working on Mr. Obama’s campaign for the United States Senate; he is now Mr. Obama’a chief strategist.

Four years later, the writers of “The West Wing” are watching in amazement as the election plays out. The parallels between the final two seasons of the series (it ended its run on NBC in May 2006) and the current political season are unmistakable. Fiction has, once again, foreshadowed reality.

Watching “The West Wing” in retrospect — all seven seasons are available on DVD, and episodes can be seen in syndication — viewers can see allusions to Mr. Obama in almost every facet of Matthew Santos, the Hispanic Democratic candidate played by Jimmy Smits. Santos is a coalition-building Congressional newcomer who feels frustrated by the polarization of Washington. A telegenic and popular fortysomething with two young children, Santos enters the presidential race and eventually beats established candidates in a long primary campaign.
… The casting of Mr. Smits introduced story lines about the prospect of a minority president. But when an aide suggests a fund-raising drive in a Latino community, Santos snaps: “I don’t want to just be the brown candidate. I want to be the American candidate.” The Obama campaign has made similar assertions.

Steve’s comments on West Wing don’t convince me but I have not watched the show.

I thought Obama’s first book was very well written. The theme of the book was very surprising coming from a liberal.

The great secular faith of our age is Diversity. Diversity is what makes America great and is the most important goal of social policy according to most people to the left of Sailor. Obama grew up in a very diverse environment and according to his book he hated it. The main theme of his book is how much he wanted to be part of the black community. He has scorn for his brother Mark who does not share his obsession with being part of a black community.

Conservatives should ask why is diversity so great if Obama hated it. They should use his example to counter the diversity cult in our society.

As Remnick’s biography makes clear at vast length, Obama saw his life story as primarily just what the subtitle of his 1994 autobiography says it is: “A Story of Race and Inheritance.” That shouldn’t be surprising, but that wasn’t how he was depicted in the press, which was why the Rev. Wright revelations (after 42 states had voted in the primaries) were seen in March 2008 as so surprising. People who had read Obama’s memoir carefully — Jonathan Raban, Shelby Steele, me, not too many others, though — weren’t surprised. But not many people had read “Dreams from My Father” well. It’s a long book with an intentionally difficult prose style, so a lot of people just read into it what they hoped to read.

Everyones racial identity is forced on them. It is created by the perceptions and expectations other people have of you.

Look at a picture of Obama’s brother. Is he a black man or a white man in america? If he grew up and lived here he would be seen as black. That is his public persona. He has no choice. it is forced on him. If he ran for president, he would be seen as a black man running for president. He can’t be white. He could claim to be mixed-race, but for that to actually work you have to look more white. Rashida Jones for instance. Is she black, white, hispanic, samoan…? You can’t tell. She has the luxury of being post or non-racial. Obama does not. The racial perceptions others have of you is based on appearance (and reinforced with accent/dialect) in this country. Obama, being a black man in every way that counts in this country, chose to embrace and explore being black. Believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with being black.

And the whole Rev. Wright thing is the longest failed gotcha in history. It only means something to people who are looking for a reason to denegrate Obama. It’s about effective as the socialist lable.

Steve: You make a point of (and seem to feel some contempt for) Obama’s embrace of a black identity. At the same time you denigrate him for presenting himself as post-racial. How could he do both? Is there an instance in the campaign where he said he was post racial, or spoke with a different cadence or got his hair relaxed or what…. talked about how he loved NASCAR?

Or are you just complaining about the press here? It seemed like above the post-racial criticism was leveled at his campaign.